See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259148433

Towards a Unified Theory of Brand Equity: Conceptualizations, Taxonomy and

Avenues for Future Research

Article  in  Journal of Product & Brand Management · March 2015

DOI: 10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0639

CITATIONS READS

108 4,474

3 authors, including:

Rui Vinhas da Silva

ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
31 PUBLICATIONS   1,267 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Business View project

Branding View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nebojsa S. Davcik on 29 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Towards a Unified Theory of Brand Equity: Conceptualizations, Taxonomy and

Avenues for Future Research
Nebojsa S. Davcik
ISCTE Business School, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL),
Av. das Forcas Armadas, 1649-026, Lisbon, Portugal
Assistant Professor of Marketing & BRU Research Fellow
davcik@live.com

Rui Vinhas da Silva

ISCTE Business School, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL), BRU
Av. das Forcas Armadas, 1649-026, Lisbon, Portugal
Associate Professor of Marketing
rui.vinhas.silva@iscte.pt

Joe F. Hair
Kennesaw State University
Coles College of Business
Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA
jhair3@kennesaw.edu

Key words: branding, brand equity theory, stakeholder value and perspective, financial performance,
marketing assets, sources and determinants of brand equity
Abstract: This paper aims to look into contemporary thinking within the brand equity paradigm, with a view to
establishing avenues for further research on the drivers of brand equity formation, enabling a more in-depth
understanding of the antecedents of brand equity and its determinants, as well as the development of an
improved instrument to measure brand equity. We develop the relating conceptual study through
differentiation and integration as a specific conceptual goal. We present a taxonomic framework of brand
equity grounded on a synthesis of contemporary approaches to the theme. In so doing we identify gaps in the
brand equity literature, which we hope will serve as beacons for future research and provide valuable
theoretical insights on the determinants of brand equity formation and the development of better brand equity
measurement tools. We argue that the unifying brand equity theory should be based on three pillars:
stakeholder value, marketing assets and brand financial performance outputs.

Acknowledgement: The authors are grateful to Barry Babin, Oriol Iglesias and participants of the Academy
of Marketing Branding SIG conference 2014 (Hatfield, UK) and research seminar at ESADE Business & Law
School for their valuable insights on a previous version of the manuscript. We appreciate useful commentaries
and suggestions from the two anonymous reviewers as well as the support from editors’. All mistakes and
misunderstandings are the authors’.

First version: December 5, 2013; this version: December 10, 2014

“This is a pre-print of an article published in Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2015, vol.
24 No. 1. The definitive publisher-authenticated version is available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0639”

Towards a Unified Theory of Brand Equity: Conceptualizations, Taxonomy and Avenues
for Future Research
1. Brands, branding and their role in
contemporary societies
Modern-day living in contemporary societies
would be very different without the proliferation
of brands and their ramifications on the
livelihoods of individuals. Our lives are marked
and framed with goods that we consume, their
names, symbolism, and true or false promises.
Branding is a pivotal societal construct, as little
remains unbranded in today´s world. By
successfully deploying brand management
knowledge and techniques to differentiate
otherwise undifferentiated goods and services of
similar functional worth, organizations are
capable of fully exploiting domestic resources
and aggregate value to market offers with
positive consequences when catering to often
conflicting exigencies of key stakeholder
constituencies.
Brand management antecedents and their
ramifications have drawn considerable attention
over the last couple of decades from both the
academic and practitioner communities. Indeed,
successful brand-building, ways and mechanisms
in which to attain it, and its importance to
organizations have experienced extensive
scrutiny in the extant literature (e.g.
Christodoulides and de Chernatony, 2010;
Srinivasan et al., 2005; Park and Srinivasan,
1994; cf. Davcik and Rundquist, 2012; Paswan et
al., 2012). Moreover, there has been a particular
focus on the role of branding as a protector of the
organization in times of turbulence, typified by
constant change and volatility in the macro-
environment (King, 1991).
Conventional wisdom shows that an
organization does well when it carefully manages
its portfolio of brands and invests in them. There
2
is, however, only limited academic literature and
scarce knowledge emanating from the
practitioner world on strategies and solutions for
brand building, as well as the determinants of
brand equity. One possible explanation for this
can be traced to a very heterogeneous knowledge
base representing a broad number of industries
and countries. This implies an inherent difficulty
in attaining generalizability of findings and a
corresponding challenge for achieving external
validity required to develop theory. Current
brand knowledge is also viewed as having little
practical value as well as not providing
meaningful business solutions for practitioners.
A second reason why this may be the case is the
lack of a general unifying theory of brand equity
applicable across multiple industry contexts.
Contemporary marketing theory and practice
should therefore seek to describe and explain
how brands are managed and used for the
creation of brand equity. The emphasis should be
on the critical importance of brand equity
formation to the organization and its role as
caretaker of the varying and often conflicting
interests of key stakeholder constituencies, and in
particular the interests of discerning and
sophisticated consumers. Unfortunately, in spite
of growing literature on the subject over the last
couple of decades, a unique and straightforward
answer on the creation and management of brand
equity has not been forthcoming.
This paper critically evaluates the current
body of brand equity knowledge and its
measurement approaches. We execute the
assessment based on differentiation and
integration as specific conceptual goals,
following the approaches of MacInnis (2011) and
Yadav (2014). The assessment contributes to
marketing theory development because it

demonstrates how conceptual entities are
different, identifies antecedents, and suggests
contingencies. In doing so, we present a
synthesis of approaches to themes, a taxonomic
framework, theoretical and methodological gaps
in brand equity literature, and directions for
future research toward a unified theory of brand
equity. With this in mind, a short overview of the
evolution of the brand management themes is
presented next. In the following section sources
of brand equity and the determinants of brand
equity formation are discussed from theoretical
and historical perspectives. We conclude with a
call for the development of more comprehensive
methodological approaches for the study of
brand equity.
2. Brand management challenge:
conceptualizing brand and brand equity
One of the first references to branding, or
what is currently thought of as basic brand theory
(Ambler, 1997), can be traced to the work of St.
Augustine of Hippo (Aurelius Augustinus
Hipponensis) in the fifth century A.D. St.
Augustine is important to contemporary brand
theory because he was the first to make the
distinction between functional utility as a
criterion for value ascription (Jevons, 2007) and
psychological benefits that constitute an integral
part of consumption experiences (Ambler, 1997),
leading to the idea of differentiation based on
product intangibles. These two concepts, the
constraint of need (functional utility) and appeals
grounded on desire (benefits of ownership), are
expressed in modern conceptualizations of needs
and wants (Jevons, 2007). Similarly, the sermons
of San Bernadino of Siena (XV c. A.D.) referred
to the existence of differences between
virtuositas (functionality), raritas (scarcity), and
complacibilitas (psychological benefits), and
merchants considered all three when setting
commodity prices (justum pretium – “just”, fair
price) (Ambler, 1997; Jevons, 2007).
3
Contemporary branding practice uses the same
differences to create unique messages for brand
stakeholders.
2.1. Conceptualization of brand
Conventional marketing thinking defines a
brand as an entity that provides added value to
key stakeholder constituencies based on factors
that extend beyond the functional characteristics
that are intrinsic to the goods and services that
are traded under those brand names (cf.
Farquhar, 1989; Aaker, 1991). These added
intangible values differentiate a product from its
competitors, influence consumer preferences,
and enhance customer satisfaction levels often
leading to greater customer loyalty.
Early discussions on branding and its
importance appear in business literature by
notable marketing scholars such as Smith (1915)
and Copeland (1923). According to these
authors, individuals will be reluctant to buy a
product if there is no recognizable and positive
brand name by the manufacturer. Later, scholars
such as Gardner and Levy (1955) expanded these
concepts noting that brands are embedded within
a complex symbolism representing a variety of
attributes and ideas, and that brand names are
thus much more than mere labels that distinguish
between products enabling consumers to tell
them apart in the context of complex buying
situations. Gardner and Levy (1955) also argued
that brands encapsulate sets of ideas, feelings,
and attitudes about an organization’s products,
and that consumers make product choices based
on elements of these sets they find most
appealing.
The development process in the social
sciences has a tendency “to be an endless
spiraling of ambiguities of language” (Gabbott
and Jevons, 2009; p. 120). Indeed, Gabbott and
Jevons (2009) contend that the term “brand” is a
highly contextualized entity susceptible to
diverse contemporary approaches and
understandings, and consequently to a never-

ending theoretical development process.
Theoretical development processes in this
context, however, are generally viewed in two
distinct ways. One if from a nominal perspective,
while the other is the real form.
The nominal form of something (quid
nominis) is defined by its name, but the essence
of something can only be determined, when and
only when, we know its real form (quid rei)
(Gabbott and Jevons, 2009). Therefore, it is
highly unlikely that a single definition of brand,
one that is consensual and widely accepted, can
be developed. Gabbott and Jevons (2009; p.121)
have proposed that there will ‘never’ be a
unifying definition of “brand”, and that it is “a
constantly evolving series of contexts or lenses
through which the phenomenon is viewed”.
Thus, in the rich, context-laden environment of
contemporary organizational realities, a number
of different “brand” definitions, understandings,
and approaches may co-exist and compete for
acceptance.
2.2. Conceptualization of brand equity
A brand is not a mere name for a product.
Rather, a brand is a supplier’s guarantee that it
will continuously and consistently deliver on its
promises, including promises explicitly or
implicitly made on tangible features, specific
quality thresholds, and benefits and convenience
to the consumer. A brand signals to the consumer
the source of the product and should act in a
manner that protects consumers and producers
from competitors who attempt to provide
identical products (cf. Copeland, 1923; Smith,
1915; Aaker, 1991; Davcik and Sharma,
forthcoming). In other words, a brand has to help
in product differentiation when stakeholders have
asymmetric information about its quality and
performance as well as in providing product
loyalty mechanisms against new entrants in the
market (cf. Schmalensee, 1982; Davcik and
Sharma, forthcoming). A modern approach to
branding includes a comprehensive list of
4
elements that overlap traditional understandings
of the brand concept and includes not only
distinguishable tangible product-related features,
differentiation by name, color, or any other
visible characteristics, but also intangibles, such
as utility expectations or consumer subjectivism.
Contemporary paradigms on branding issues and
scholarly thought have focused mostly on
consumer attitudes, loyalty, perceptions, etc., as
well as on organizational marketing investments
in a brand.
Modern marketing theory and practices have
recognized the brand equity paradigm as a key
strategic asset for organizations. Keller and
Lehmann (2006) have argued that a brand is
influential or manifests its importance at three
key levels which correspond to three distinct yet
interconnected market dimensions, or indeed
three distinct markets: customer, product, and
financial markets. Thus, value accrued by these
markets may be designated as brand equity. The
brand equity paradigm has been discussed
extensively in marketing literature and many
researchers have offered a wide array of
definitions for the brand equity concept (Aaker,
1991; Farquhar, 1989; Sriram et al., 2007; cf.
Christodoulides and de Chernatony, 2010) as
well as different perspectives on the factors that
influence brand equity. Indeed, academic
discussion is inconclusive about the conceptual
foundations, sources, essence, and measures of
brand equity (Davcik, 2013). For example, there
is no consensus in the literature whether brand
equity refers to the value of a brand name or the
value of a brand (Park et al., 2008) or what is the
theoretical delineation of brand equity in the
multi-brand organization — i.e., how brand
equity affects the brand portfolio strategy and
firm performance. Typical consumer demand is
heterogeneous and it is prone to try different
brands — i.e., is willing to switch easily between
brands. Businesses thus face challenges
managing both consumers’ switching behaviors
and their broad brand portfolios. This in

consequence, makes their own brands compete
against each other for limited intra-firm
resources and consumers. It is unclear in
contemporary branding literature how managers
may utilize the limited firm resources and
branding strategy to improve the firm
performance. Furthermore, there is no consensus
either about an appropriate measurement
approach: customer-based, product-based,
financial based, etc. (e.g. Aaker, 1991; Keller,
1993; Simon and Sullivan, 1993). However, two
brand equity research streams are dominant in
empirical research—the customer-based and
financial-based approaches. The focus of the
customer-based brand equity paradigm is the
interaction between a customer and the brand, as
well as the consequences which yield that
interrelationship (e.g. Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993;
Pappu et al., 2005; cf. Cuneo et al., 2012;
Veloutsou et al., 2013). In contrast, the financial-
based brand equity paradigm uses the brand’s
financial value as a measure of success and
performance (e.g. Simon and Sullivan, 1993;
Ailawadi et al., 2003; cf. Isberg and Pitta, 2013;
Davcik and Sharma, forthcoming).
A widely used definition emanating from the
marketing literature identifies brand equity as the
value added by the brand name to a product that
does not possess a brand name (Farquhar, 1989;
Keller, 1993; Sriram et al., 2007). A more
comprehensive definition of brand equity
characterizes it as the value of the brand that
derives from high levels of brand loyalty,
perceived quality, name awareness, and strong
brand associations, as well as assets such as
trademarks, patents and distribution channels that
are associated with the brand (Kotler and Keller,
2012; Aaker, 1991; cf. Sinclair and Keller,
2014). Aaker (1991, p. 15) also posited that
brand equity is “a set of brand assets and
liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol
that add to or subtract from the value provided by
a product or service to a firm and/or to that
firm’s customers”. Finally, Srinivasan et al.
5
(2005) defined the brand equity construct as the
brand’s annual incremental contribution when
contrasted with a base product.
Ambler et al. (2002, p. 23) have suggested
that brand equity describes the asset created by a
company’s marketing effort that will “drive
future cash flows from the sales of that brand”.
Furthermore, the brand equity terminology notes
that a brand is an asset that can be bought or sold
for a certain price (Aaker et al., 2004; cf. Salinas
and Ambler, 2009; Sinclair and Keller, 2014;
Spielmann, 2014). Marketing assets, however,
should not be mistaken for the financial
expression of those specific assets, also known as
“brand valuation” (Raggio and Leone, 2009;
Salinas and Ambler, 2009; cf. Ambler, 1997;
Kirk et al., 2013). This term is partially
misleading because the word “equity” has its
origin in the realm of finance, but at its core it
takes a subjective view and represents intangible
cues that are valued by the consumer. For
instance, Ambler et al. (2002) have argued that
brand equity represents the customer mindset
with respect to a brand, which includes
perceptions, thoughts, experiences, attitudes,
images, etc. It has been argued in the literature
that brand equity “provides goodwill value in the
face of uncertainty” (Broniarczyk and Gershoff,
2003; p. 163; cf. Shapiro, 1982) and crisis (cf.
Hegner et al., 2014; Suder and Suder, 2013;
Brianna et al., 2014) as brand equity may be
taken to be a sign of the credibility of brand
associations in the marketplace (Erdem and
Swait, 1998).
2.3. Brand equity: a measurement and
conceptual disarray
Brand equity should be formally measured,
but searching for a single financial performance
metric is a misleading endeavor (Ambler, 2008).
Financial performance measures are generally
short-term oriented and not inclusive of
intangible brand assets as measured by brand
equity (Ambler, 2008), and for organizations to

use only this type of brand performance
assessment may jeopardize long-term business
performance (Collins and Porras, 2000). In
contrast, strictly consumer-based measures are
limited by subjectivity and availability of
respondents. Additionally, these intermediate
outcomes are incapable of converting consumer
value into financial value (Davcik, 2013). In
other words, brand measurement methods must
include non-financial measures, such as brand
awareness, purchase intentions, and consumer
loyalty, as well as financial measures that reflect
consumer willingness to pay premium prices,
market share, etc.
In a general sense, brand equity is considered
as a positive marketing outcome due to the
presence of a certain brand name associated with
a particular good or service. The assumption is
that the intended marketing outcome would
differ if the same product does not carry that
particular name or even any name at all
(Farquhar, 1989; Keller, 1993); that is, if it were
unbranded. This view, however, limits the flow
of future research, as consumers when
encountering brands inevitably possess
knowledge of brand names, logos, packaging or
products. In these situations, as suggested by
Raggio and Leone (2007), consumers
automatically generate perceptions and
associations about the brand. It is therefore not
possible for a brand to not have any brand equity.
It is also very difficult even at the level of
intellectual curiosity to fathom a possibility of
establishing meaningful comparisons between
branded and unbranded products these days for
two reasons. First, in industrial markets there are
in effect no unbranded products. Each product,
which legally finds its way into the marketplace,
will in some way possess some form of
packaging and be called by something and thus
will have a name. Even the most basic of staples,
for example, groceries in the fruit market, will
normally be traded under some producer´s name
and consumers will be buying it from a legally
6
established trading firm. Second, some
researchers have compared in their studies
national brands with private label brands (e.g.
Ailawadi et al., 2003; Choi and Coughlan, 2006).
The latter are brands that are created for the
benefit of retailers and wholesalers who bring
them into the marketplace. Market evidence
suggests that private label brands typically
compete on price and they will often offer
discounts. Consumer perceived quality of these
products is a function of the track-record or
history of these retailers and wholesalers, whose
names act as guarantors of quality and
satisfaction with the consumption experience
(Kotler and Keller, 2012; Choi and Coughlan,
2006). In contemporary economies it is difficult
to compare national brands vs. private label
brands, as the latter have evolved from private
label brands into private brands—they carry
names that stand alone from the retailer’s
brand—which possess attributes that potential
consumers can make judgments on as for any
national brand. Secondly, several products being
traded under the same category, both branded
and unbranded, co-exist on the same retailer
space, thus suggesting that brand comparisons
are difficult indeed to make. But when they are
made, there is always a possibility of an inherent
bias towards branded products. The third reason
that comparisons are of little value is that private
labels can be clearly favored by the retailers to
the detriment of other branded goods. This is
often manifested in the allocation of shelf space,
quantities allowed of the branded variety, pricing
issues, as well as sales promotion initiatives and
others (Kotler and Keller, 2012).
Despite numerous conceptual and operational
definitions and models of brand equity, there is
limited quantitative research examining its
constructs based on solid empirical data (e.g.,
Atilgan et al., 2005; Davcik and Sharma,
forthcoming). Thus, to extend further research in
the field it is necessary to consider a more
comprehensive brand equity definition as well as

to establish determinants that influence brand
equity performance. We discuss these issues in
the following sections.
3. Sources of brand equity determinants
The brand equity concept can be discussed
from different perspectives, namely, that of the
investor, the manufacturer, the retailer, and the
consumer. Similar to stakeholder management
thinking, multiple perspectives are needed that
allow for the harmonization of the often
conflicting interests of various stakeholder
groups with vested interests in the organization.
Investors are more interested in the financial
ramifications of the brand equity concept (Cobb-
Walgren et al., 1995), whilst manufacturers look
at it from the viewpoint of its strategic worth and
potential for application (Keller, 1993) in the
pursuit of targeted marketing and financial goals,
and retailers are predominantly concerned about
the marketing implications of the brand equity
concept.
These observations validate the importance of
investigating the determinants of brand equity as
well as its sources from a holistic organizational
perspective. Such an approach is justified on the
grounds that it depends on whose perspective one
takes into account as to the meaning brand equity
will assume. The concept will have different
meanings but also different consequences and
ramifications. Complex brand equity research
therefore clearly demands multiple perspectives
that in particular consider consumer wants and
needs as well as behavior. For instance,
contemporary branding literature posits that
brands are social and dynamic processes that
include multiple stakeholders, as brand value is
co-created among stakeholders (Iglesias et al.,
2013, Merz et al., 2009; cf. Hult et al., 2011;
Babin and James, 2010). This view may open
new theoretical perspectives and
conceptualizations in brand equity research.
Furthermore, few conceptual developments or
7
empirical research programs have been
forthcoming in the academic literature that
address the critical importance of marketing
activities in creating brand equity, which specific
activities are important, and the specific ways
they contribute to brand equity creation (e.g.,
Barwise, 1993; Yoo et al., 2000; Iglesias et al.,
2013). Thus, despite an overwhelming interest on
behalf of researchers in brand management
theorization, and in particular with regard to the
specific coverage of the brand equity concept,
the predominant focus has thus far rested on
measurement issues of brand equity, not on its
sources or determinants.
3.1. Brand equity: contemporary concepts
and methodology
To synthesize and compile the extant
literature, we analyzed the application of the
brand equity paradigm from three distinct
domains: (1) sources of brand equity, (2)
determinants of brand equity, and (3) applied
metrics / brand equity research approaches. This
analysis is consistent with the theoretical
framework by MacInnis (2011) and Yadav
(2014); more specifically, we develop the
relating conceptual study through differentiation
and integration as specific conceptual goals. To
do so, we accessed the Business Source
Complete database to search for empirical and
conceptual references that explicitly addressed
the brand equity paradigm and its distinct
domains in the title and/or abstract for the period
1990-2013. The database was filtered using the
following keywords: brand equity, sources and
determinants, for which we found 146 articles.
We analyzed each of these papers in terms of
their novel theoretical contribution to the theme
and their application of distinct sources and
determinants of brand equity. Additionally, we
annotated applied metrics and analyzed different
research approaches in each of these articles.
After an additional contextual analysis and
excluding the papers that only extend a common

theoretical background, because they do not give
a novel theoretical understanding of the theme,
we narrowed our theoretical foundations within
the brand equity paradigm as presented in our
taxonomy. Table 1 summarizes the main brand
equity concepts and the body of research
focusing on brand equity and its exemplars. The
taxonomy describes the various models and
approaches to the different brand equity concepts
and its determinants, whether it will be
conceptualizations, established metrics or
sources and determinants of brand equity. The
conceptual approach taken to define the brand
equity concept is annotated with the letter C.
Concepts that are used in the context of the
investigation of brand equity metrics are
annotated with the letter M, and studies that
explore the source of brand equity and its
determinants are marked with D. The
conclusions that are presented are summaries of
past studies which in turn point to broad
questions and dilemmas around the theme of
brand equity creation and management. There are
many different research approaches and studies
on brand equity measurement in the marketing
literature, but those represented in Table 1
provide a novel conceptual foundation.
TAKE IN TABLE 1
TAKE IN FIGURE 1
Figure 1 is derived from the taxonomies and
concepts discussed herein and attempts to
represent key brand equity concepts from both
consumer and organizational perspectives, whilst
attempting to be inclusive of both the finance and
marketing domains. The consumer-marketing
dimension appears in the upper-right section of
the matrix. This dimension is predominantly
driven by marketing approaches to the
explanation of brand equity formation, and
derives its empirical grounding from consumer-
focused studies. The financial-company
dimension is positioned in the lower-left part of
8
the matrix. This dimension is driven by financial
approaches, with a focus on company actions, in
the explanation of brand equity determinants.
The extant academic literature does not
provide an appropriate measurement method
which would potentially allow for a better
understanding of the sources and determinants of
the brand equity concept (Park and Srinivasan,
1994). The academic community is therefore
advised to pay more careful attention to the
development of a more systemic view of brands
and products (Shocker et al., 1994; Iglesias et al.,
2013; cf. Ambler and Styles, 1997). The research
community should pursue more comprehensive
theoretical approaches and business techniques.
Further investigation in this field is thus required,
with a possible future research agenda focusing
on brand equity formation and its effects on firm
performance. The analysis involves the
perspective of both consumers and organizations,
whilst simultaneously eliciting a better
understanding of financial and marketing
constructs and their role in the interface with the
brand equity concept.
3.2. Brand equity taxonomies
Farquhar’s (1989) research approach covers
the strategic aspects of branding and the
leveraging of brand equity. The author concludes
that a brand is something that endows a product
with intangible elements, whilst brand equity
represents the added value that accrues to the
organization, thus rendering the development of
strong brands as imperative for organizational
strategic thinking. Several questions remain
unanswered, however, including what are
adequate strategies for leveraging brand equity
and what are possible determinants of brand
value. The work of Farquhar (1989) has pre-
empted future research on the strategic aspects of
brand equity formation, its antecedents and
processes, ways in which to leverage brand
equity and how brands act as aggregators of
value to core product functionality. In calling

attention to the fundamental need for the
development of strong brands as an
organizational imperative, avenues for research
into the exploration of adequate strategies for
leveraging brand equity are identified. Another
research avenue is a better specification of the
determinants of brand value formation, in ways
that are inter-contextual and cover both products
and economic activities.
Aaker (1991) is founder of the consumer-
based brand equity approach, whose research
focus is on the consumer, rather than the
organization or other stakeholder groups.
Aaker’s brand equity model stipulates that brand
equity is about the creation of value for both the
organization and the consumer (Aaker, 1991;
Aaker et al., 2004). Consumer brand loyalty
reduces vulnerability to competition, leveraging
purchasing by keeping existing customers and
attracting new ones to the organization. Brand
awareness reduces consumer ambiguity and
establishes familiarity with the brand, but it is
also a sign of consumer knowledge of the
organization and desirably undivided
commitment to it. Often customers have no prior
accurate knowledge of product quality
parameters, and consequently consumer
perceptions of quality stand to directly influence
purchase decisions, especially when a buyer has
no way of conducting detailed comparative
analyses (Aaker, 1991). The author proposes the
notion of brand equity and brand portfolio
management being about the ownership of values
and organizations being guardians of value
systems. Both academic researchers and
practitioners need to find appropriate tools and
mechanisms for determining the sources of brand
equity for organizations, whilst acknowledging
their immense value as organizational assets on
company balance sheets. A particular emphasis
should be put on taking good care of brand
portfolios, as they are guardians of brand value,
and constitute more and more the embodiment of
the most important and most valuable assets that
9
companies possess, and that are inscribed as
assets in balance sheets under goodwill.
Future avenues for investigation reside on
what needs to be a sharper focus on the
consumer, as well as on the underlying assets of
brand equity, and the possible ways in which
additional product features may aggregate value
to underlying brand assets. As a corollary to this
thinking, further research may explore a
conceptualization of brands as tools for both
short and long-term business strategizing.
Keller (1993) has defined and proposed ways
in which to develop and measure customer-based
brand equity based on individual consumer
preferences. He suggests a conceptual model of
brand equity, defined as “the differential effect of
brand knowledge on consumer response to the
marketing of the brand” (Keller, 1993; p. 2).
Brand knowledge thus consists of brand
awareness (brand recall and recognition
performance) and brand image (associations the
consumer makes with the brand). The author
argues extensively for a customer-based brand
equity approach which can be enhanced if a
company is capable of creating a “favorable
response to pricing, distribution, advertising, and
promotional activity that is related to the brand”
(Keller, 1993; p. 9), and the same thought
process applies for licensing, as it can positively
influence brand image. Customer-based equity
occurs when a consumer is already familiar with
a brand and has already developed some
favorability and/or strong associations with the
brand (Keller, 1993). Further research needs to
be conducted on the idea of stakeholder
emotional involvement, and in particular that of
customers, and how these engage emotionally
with the organization and its products, the
processes, the codes of conduct, the terms of
engagement that are inherent to customer
emotional involvement. There is a dire need for
continuous valid inputs into such critical
knowledge as that of cultural specificities and
aesthetics, which will always vary according to

geography, space and time, irrespective of how
homogeneous, cultural and economic systems
tend to become, or may turn out to be in the
future. The development of a clear understanding
of the possible dimensions of emotional
attachment need to be scrutinized further, and
valid benchmarks defined. Further research also
needs to look into the role of brand equity
dimensions in the shaping of business strategy,
and the ways in which managers are capable of
creating value through their own initiative and
action in organizations.
Simon and Sullivan’s (1993) model of brand
equity is based on objective market-based
measures, that incorporate the effects of brand
performance outputs and account for the
revenue-enhancing characteristics of brand
equity. Their model has clear limitations,
however, in that it is not applicable to non-public
companies and also constitutes an aggregated
macro approach, which is not deemed suitable
for brand-level data, i.e., individual brands.
Simon and Sullivan´s (1993) work also suggests
that further research should indeed be conducted
on brand equity, and how value is susceptible to
being extracted from anyone or anything within
the organization and its pool of assets. Financial-
market based approaches are therefore welcome,
and further research needs to be conducted on the
financial aspects of brand equity. The emphasis
should be on the development of measures and
metrics that are based on objective market-based
criteria, and that incorporate the effects of brand
performance outputs. Aggregated macro
approaches that go beyond individual brand-level
data need to be developed. Future research also
needs to identify more refined measures of
market share and advertising, as this allows for
better estimations of brand equity.
Kamakura and Russell (1993) have proposed
behaviorally based measures of brand valuation
that rely on actual consumer decision-making
and consumption choices in the market. The
authors conceptualize brand equity as a measure
10
of the intrinsic utility or value of a brand to
consumers and they derive brand equity
measures by using a probabilistic choice model
following the classical assumptions of random
utility. The brand equity measures are estimated
using several situational factors, including price,
perceived quality of product features and recent
advertising. Kamakura and Russell´s (1993)
work also leaves open ideas for further research
on consumer choice and the establishment of
possible links with brand equity formation.
Yoo et al. (2000) have investigated the
relationships between selected marketing mix
elements and the creation of brand equity. They
have proposed a model whereby an assumption is
made that marketing mix elements exert
significant effects on dimensions of brand equity
(Yoo et al., 2000). The authors focus on a few
key elements, particularly on price, store image,
distribution, advertising expenditure, price
promotions or special deals, all marketing mix
elements with a view to determining the
relationship between these and brand equity
formation. Yoo et al.´s (2000) work points out
that areas for future research may focus on
marketing management and the notion of looking
into brand equity from the viewpoint of
improving its conceptualization. They suggest
that the research perspective shall be on actively
seeking the determinants of brand equity as well
as the interrelationship between brand equity and
marketing mix management. Research on sales
and its impact on brand equity is also
recommended and the same thinking applies to
incremental studies on the relationship between
price and the quality of goods and services.
Further research into how consumers use price as
a proxy for quality evaluations of goods and
services is particularly welcome.
Ailawadi et al. (2003) suggested in a study
based on revenue-premium brand equity, that the
latter is influenced by sales, generated by the
organization working on the marketing mix
whilst acknowledging the existence of

competitor brands that pursue similar objectives.
The authors outline what they perceive as
strategic implications by stating that (2003, p. 3)
“equity is created (…) by the firm’s previously
existing strength from its corporate image,
product line, R&D, and other capabilities”. It has
unfortunately been the case that the authors have
not paid enough attention to the antecedents of
brand equity and their origination, its
determinants and drivers, and we are therefore
left with only limited knowledge about their
views on different marketing and strategic issues,
rather than what could instead have been an
analysis of brand equity measurements and
techniques. Ailawadi et al.´s (2003) approach to
brand equity resides mostly on what the concept
signifies as a source of revenue premium for
organizations. Further research needs to be
conducted on the development of possible
metrics and alternative approaches to the
financial aspects of brand equity and its
meaningful contribution to profitability.
The consequences of brand building
investments (e.g. advertising) to brand equity
formation requires further research and the same
applies to research leading to a better
identification of benchmark or reference brands.
Novel issues and questions also naturally arise
from the exploration of the relationships that are
present throughout the development process of
high-equity brands. Measurements that are
grounded in price/revenue premium models are
intuitively appealing. However, they can result in
biased estimates of brand equity, in that a
premium approach captures only one dimension
of brand equity, and neglects its ability to
mitigate marketing costs for existing and indeed
future brands (cf. Simon and Sullivan, 1993).
Revenue premium approaches are not widely
accepted as valid theoretical frameworks due to
vague identification of the benchmark brand, i.e.,
an identification of the brand without equity
associated with it. The limitation of this approach
lies in the fact that it expresses only the financial
11
side of the brand equity paradigm without any
consideration of marketing strategy. Subsequent
approaches to the theme need to be based on
objective market-based measures and incorporate
the effects of brand performance outputs. More
refined measures of market share and advertising
are also needed, metrics that lead to the
identification of more accurate estimations of
brand equity.
Authors like Raggio and Leone (2007) have
thoroughly disagreed with the revenue premium
concept and have suggested that there may be a
potentially positive outcome for pioneering
brands if they are to establish a new brand
category. They later demonstrated that customer
equity is a measure of brand value, and should
therefore not be misinterpreted as an independent
equity measure (Raggio and Leone, 2009), but
say nothing about how this is related to firm
performance. Raggio and Leone (2009) also
suggest new avenues for future research that
focus on brand value formation and separation
from the brand equity construct. Brand value
represents the sale or replacement price of a
brand and depending on whoever owns the brand
this value differs. Customer equity is also a
partial measure of brand value, and thus should
not be considered as an independent equity
construct (in comparison to other equity
approaches). All of these themes are open
questions that deserve careful scrutiny in future
research programs, which will certainly
contribute to their much needed clarification.
Keller and Lehmann (2003; 2006) have
conceptualized and tested a model in its reduced
form: marketing activities => product-market
results => financial impact; adapted and
“localized” within brands. Keller and Lehmann´s
(2003; 2006) work also suggests there is ample
ground for research to be conducted on the brand
value chain (BVC) by taking a holistic approach
that is inclusive of individual brand equity
conceptualization approaches as well as
suggesting alternative metrics and looking deeper

into brand equity sources and determinants of
brand value and its creation.
The financial marketplace brings with it
strategic implications for the determination of
brand value, and this needs to be explored further
in future research. Brand value chain (BVC)
measurement approaches are fundamentally
based on a focus towards the customer and the
customer´s mindset, but they also include the
product, as well as financial markets, their
judgments, perceptions and valuations, and all of
these constitute realities that are forever
mutating. From a managerial viewpoint, the
BVC suggests where and how value is created
for the brand, and this is critical for an
organization, as it allows for a persistent
optimization of allocated resources, thus
ensuring brand value maximization. The relative
success or failure of a brand equity program is
based on acknowledging the uncontrollable
nature of factors that influence brand value
creation. Other research may lead down the path
of determination of how much of brand value
gets transformed into shareholder value and how
much of value creation is dependent upon
established and executed marketing programs, as
well as how determinant is the interdependence
between factors that inhibit brand value creation.
All of these questions conform to worthwhile
lines of future enquiry.
Srinivasan, Park and Chang (2005) suggest
possible avenues for subsequent research on
sources of brand equity as seen from the
viewpoint of consumer. The authors suggested
measurement of the brand equity based on its
money incremental contribution, which is based
on customer’s incremental choice probability.
Srinivasan et al. (2005) have proposed three
sources of brand equity: brand awareness,
attribute perception biases and non-attribute
preference. But several questions remain
unanswered. First, the study doesn’t offer
appropriate measurement of the relative impact
of each source on the brand equity. Second, the
12
proposed customer-based measure of brand
equity lacks the market valuation.
Ambler (2008) on the other hand suggested
future research on financial marketing metrics
with a view to attaining silver metrics for the
assessment of performance. In this context,
financial performance measures are necessary,
but not sufficient when valuing brand equity, and
thus silver metrics for brand equity that rely on
complementary dimensions are deemed
necessary. Furthermore, a poignant question that
needs to be properly addressed in the context of
future research into the topic, relates to whether
brand valuation metrics should be limited to
comparative analyses of marginal aggregated
value that is inherent to branding, when
contrasted with comparative financial outcomes
that derive from equivalent unbranded products.
Future research into the nurturing of marketing
assets, as something one works on today, with a
view to building tomorrow´s brand equity is an
initial requirement for organizations seeking to
build brand equity in the context of product
brands as well as corporate brands.
4. Conceptual conclusions and
recommendations
In studying brand equity formation, we call
for the development of more comprehensive
methodological approaches. MacInnis (2011) and
Yadav (2014) argue that there are eight types of
contribution in theory building, and not one
unique way. This process reflects how the
development of knowledge evolves and creates
new contingencies. In doing so, we conducted
the relating conceptual study through
differentiation and integration.
TAKE IN TABLE 2
The meaning of specific conceptual goals was
to differentiate conflicting focuses and to
synthesize contemporary approaches to the brand

equity concept. The analysis suggests gaps in the
literature and in practice exist in consumer-
company value creation, consumer-financial as
well as marketing-company domains. Our
taxonomic framework (see details in Table 1)
shows that several authors have followed the
brand equity conceptualization approach (e.g.
Farquhar, 1989; Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Yoo
et al., 2000; Ambler, 2008; Keller and Lehmann,
2006); the brand equity metric approach as
evidenced by Simon and Sullivan (1993),
Kamakura and Russell (1993), Ailawadi et al.
(2003), Srinivasan et al. (2005); as well as Yoo
et al. (2000) and Ambler (2008), and have tried
to investigate the sources of brand equity
determinants. Having presented a typology as to
what currently exists in the literature, we have
concluded there is a need for further research that
elicits a better understanding as to the
antecedents of brand equity and its formation in
organizations. Several authors (e.g. Aaker, 1991;
Keller, 1993; Kamakura and Russell, 1993;
Keller and Lehmann, 2006) applied the use of
brand equity / brand values concepts, while
Raggio and Leone (2007) asserted that equity /
value constructs are related but must be separated
and treated independently.
In following subsections, we first address
open questions and issues from the existing
literature that remain unanswered. We then
suggest research domains toward a general brand
equity theory.
4.1 Open questions and avenues for future
research
We propose avenues for future research that
derive from what we perceive and find as gaps in
the existing literature on the basis of an analysis
of the brand equity literature. These can be
articulated by recourse to the formats and
suggestions previously proposed. The
interdisciplinary nature of these topics requires
that they are approached systemically and often
13
simultaneously, albeit with a concern for the
integration of these isolated topics into a
coherent whole. Based on an extensive literature
review and taxonomy presented, we suggest
three domains for future research avenues that
should bring us toward a unifying theory of
brand equity, namely: consumer and company
value perspective (i.e., stakeholder value),
managing marketing assets and financial
performance. In establishing inroads into the
brand equity literature and aligned with
organizational needs and those of practitioners in
the field the following themes and issues should
undergo extensive scrutiny from the academic
and practitioner communities alike:
1) Consumer and company value metrics
(Stakeholder value)
 Future research on brand equity as seen
from an internal stakeholder firm
perspective
 Stakeholder emotional involvement with
the organization
 Novel ways in which branding
aggregates value to organizations and
their products
 Brand management and brand equity
formation as key to modern
organizations
 Constant focus on the consumer
 Cultural specificities and aesthetics and
variations according to geography, space
and time
 Understanding of the possible
dimensions of emotional attachment and
subsequent search for valid benchmarks
for stakeholder emotional connection
with the brand
 Improvement of brand equity
conceptualizations
 Further research on the determinants of
brand equity

 The role and importance of brand equity
to organizations
 Research to be conducted on the brand
value chain (BVC), taking a holistic
approach that is inclusive of
heterogeneous brand equity
conceptualization approaches
 Brand value chain (BVC) measurement
approaches are based on the customer
mindset, products, and financial markets
and these realities change all the time
 Alternative metrics and identification of
brand equity sources and determinants.
This implies continuous search for the
determinants of brand equity and further
insights into consumer-based sources of
brand equity
 The role of inter-organizational
relationships in building high equity
brands
 The relative success or failure of a brand
program is based on acknowledging the
uncontrollable nature of the multitude of
factors that influence brand equity
creation and this requires further enquiry
 Other research may lead down the path
of how much the value generated by
positive brand performance gets
transformed into shareholder value…
o … and how much of value creation
is dependent upon established and
executed marketing programs
o ... as well as how determinate is the
interdependence between factors
that inhibit brand equity creation
2) Managing marketing assets
3) Financial performance and outputs
 Strategic aspects of brand equity
formation, its antecedents and underlying
processes
 Alternative paths into the development of
strong brands in new environments
14
 Focus on the underlying marketing assets
of brand equity and ways in which to
identify specific features that constitute
underlying brand assets
 Insights into taking good care of brand
portfolios as guardians of brand equity
 Brands can serve as tools for both short-
term and long-term business strategies
 Research into the role of brand equity
and how it shapes business strategy in
consumer and B2B environment
 Aggregated macro approaches that
derive from brand-level data of
individual brands should be emphasized
 The consequences of brand building
investments (e.g. advertising) to brand
equity
 Research on the interrelationship
between brand equity and the marketing
mix
 The role of intra-firm competition for
limited firm’s resources in the brand
equity creation
 Leveraging the internal firm forces in
delineation of (multi) brand portfolio and
their effects on the individual brand
equity and firm performance
 Ways in which the marketing mix
contributes to the bottom-line of brand
equity formation
 The effects of marketing management
and the marketing effort on long-term
brand equity formation
 Better identification of what may
constitute the benchmark or reference
brand
 Leveraging brand equity
 The implications for sales, market share
and profits of brand equity

 More financial-market based approaches
to brand equity are welcome
 How brand equity and / or value can be
derived from any company asset?
 Measures and metrics that are based on
objective market criteria and that
incorporate the effects of brand
performance outputs.
 The determination of silver metrics of
performance assessment. Financial
performance measures are necessary, but
not sufficient in valuing brand equity,
and silver metrics for brand equity are
thus seen as desirable
 Identification of more refined measures
of market share and advertising
effectiveness allowing for better
estimations of brand equity
 Relationship between price and the
quality of goods and services. How
consumers use price as a proxy for the
quality of goods and services?
 Subsequent metrics need to be based on
objective market-based measures
 What factors need to be included for the
improvement of brand equity
estimations?
 Brand equity as directly extracted from
company financial assets
 The financial marketplace creates
different strategic implications for brand
equity in consumer and B2B
environment
 How to estimate the individual level of
brand equity in the multi brand portfolio
and contributions of intra-firm resources
to the individual brand equity?
 Determine whether brand valuation
should be limited to comparative
analyses of the additional value ascribed
by branding compared to profit streams
derived from equivalent unbranded
products or other ways should be devised
15
into looking into these issues
4.2. Toward a general brand equity theory
The existing marketing literature suggests
further research in the consumer and company
co-operation domain. These views are in line
with some contemporary approaches (e.g.
Iglesias et al., 2013; Merz, 2009; cf. Babin and
James, 2010; Davcik and Sharma, forthcoming)
that suggest embracing stakeholder co-operative
perspectives in the creation of brand equity. We
argue that an important pillar of brand equity
theory is stakeholder value perspectives that
posit brand equity as a social and dynamic
process of brand creation among stakeholders,
rather than having narrow and limited
perspectives from the consumer or company
view point. This is in line with the stakeholder
marketing perspective which strongly suggests
that value represents benefits from stakeholder
exchanges (Hult et al., 2011). Market power and
control are not with consumers or company, but
among brands’ stakeholders. A second pillar
must be marketing assets and their role in
facilitating the value for stakeholders and
expected outcome of brand’s financial
performance. For instance, a firm may invest
heavily in sales promotion or advertising
campaign, but if there is no value for
stakeholders the financial performance output
will be very small. The third pillar is brand
financial performance outputs, such as premium
price mark-up, high market share, high return on
investments, etc. Most businesses make their
financial plans and expected performance
outputs. From a market dynamic perspective, a
brand may have a high financial performance in
the current period, but without continuous
investments in marketing assets and stakeholder
values that position will be jeopardized and in
subsequent periods will be lost. As Hult et al.
(2011) point out, the organization is a dependent
part of social networks and holistic stakeholder
marketing perspective may provide achievement

of performance goals through the value for all
stakeholders.
TAKE IN FIGURE 2
Figure 2 represents the interaction among
three business domains in the creation of brand
equity. We believe that typical business
situations cover only a small interaction area
among these pillars of brand equity. The ideal
situation is when these three pillars are unified in
one single voice of the brand for all their
stakeholders.
In the end, what is sought is a search for the
Holy Grail of branding, a general brand equity
theory. The theory shall expands on the basic
notion that marketing performance is not only
about the short-term profit or net cash flows, but
also constitutes a proxy for future changes in
marketing assets and / or stakeholder values,
largely grounded on intangible dimensions of the
value proposition that will sustain the
organization well into the future. Future research
should seek for a unified theory of branding, one
that acknowledges that the brand is a
fundamental marketing asset and an important
financial performance driver, something one
works on today, with a view to building
tomorrow´s brand equity. This (future) theory
must be of extreme organizational relevance and
with significant implications for products as well
as to corporate brand portfolios.
The next steps in theory building are:
(1) Development of a brand equity research
framework that is inter-contextual and applicable
across different types of brands and sectors of
economic activity, one that also transverses time
and geography. This framework must reflect the
managerial importance of the construct as well as
its nomological validity and reliability for all
related stakeholders.
(2) Development and empirical testing of a
research construct that will satisfy stakeholders,
seen from both a financial and marketing asset
16
perspective, an endeavor that is beyond the scope
of this manuscript. As a way of example, the
measurement construct will be different in self-
reporting studies in comparison to the
econometric analysis that uses panel data, but
both approaches need to reflect all three
theoretical perspectives. We intentionally do not
suggest the specifics of the research as the topic
requires further work.
(3) Development of a research framework that
will take into consideration a multi-level nature
of firm performance and heterogeneity of brand
portfolio. Brand managers are facing constant
pressures to manage brand portfolios
strategically with a view to ensuring customer
loyalty behavior, thus preventing switching
practices and avoid being harmed by brand
extensions, price wars and sales promotion
incentives. Thus, future work must show how a
firm may achieve superb performance with
limited resources and intra-firm’s mutually
competing brand equities.
(4) The future work in the field needs to be
focused on construct definitions and research
propositions. For instance, the qualitative
research based on three suggested theoretical
perspectives can give us important directions on
the brand equity phenomenon and empirical
testing should validate the future measurement
constructs, interrelationships as well as their
sources and determinants.
5. Final thoughts
The brand equity paradigm and its importance
for marketing theory has been a research focus
for more than two decades. There is no
agreement in the literature about how to develop
a unique measure of brand equity, as well as
what are its sources, drivers and determinants.
The present article reflects some of the
multifaceted nature and roles of articles found in
the literature, although its primary focus remains
on issues related to theory development by

identifying gaps and suggesting pertinent ways to
augment it. In doing so, we followed MacInnis’
(2011) framework for conceptual contributions in
marketing and developed the resulting
conceptual study through differentiation and
integration as the first step in theory
development.
Our study has two limitations that may elicit
further avenues for future research. First, we
focused our analysis on the brand equity
paradigm and its sources, but not on brand value
formation. In the marketing literature the two
different terms “brand value” and “brand equity”
are used interchangeably1. This situation, that
results somewhat confusing, is a consequence of
the missing unified theoretical foundation that
could disentangle equity from the value concept.
The majority of the literature reviewed and used
for the taxonomy analysis reflects the same
tangled use of concepts2. According to the
prevailing brand equity paradigm and leading
brand experts (e.g., Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993;
etc.) brand equity is an outcome, usually referred
as “value”, and analyzed from the consumer or
financial perspective. So far, brand equity / brand
value research has focused on outcomes and not
on what this phenomenon is. Ailawadi et al.
(2003) was a rare study that explicitly recognized
this research problem. Therefore, if brand equity
/ brand value represents the brand outcome, there
is an important unanswered question: what is the
unidentified relationship between the entity
(brand) and outcome (equity) that drives (certain)
brand performance? This question has rarely
been raised and has no clear answer in branding
literature. This debate is beyond the scope of our
study, but we hope that further work on a unified
theory of brand equity will move us a step
1
It is common in economic literature to use the term
“goodwill”, even though the authors refer to the brand
equity concept.
2
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for
pointing out this mechanism.
17
forward in identifying those antecedent
relationships.
Second, a predominant research focus in the
literature has rested on measurement issues of
brand equity, not on its sources and determinants.
In line with recommendations from MacInnis
(2011) and Yadav (2014) for marketing theory
development, we attempted to take a first step in
filling this research gap with a thorough analysis
and integration of the most important literature
on the topic, and by indicating themes and (open)
issues for future research.
References:
Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The
Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D., Kumar, V. and Day, G. (2004),
Marketing Research, 8th ed., John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Ailawadi, K., Lehmann, D. and Neslin, S.
(2003), “Revenue Premium as an Outcome
Measure of Brand Equity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 1-17.
Ambler, T. (1997), “Do brands benefit
consumers?”, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 167-198.
Ambler, T. (2008), “Marketing metrics”, in The
Marketing Book, Michael J. Baker and Susan
J. Hart, ed., 6th ed., Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Ambler, T., Bhattacharya, C.B., Edell, J., Keller,
K., Lemon, K. and Mittal, V. (2002),
“Relating Brand and Customer Perspectives
on Marketing Management”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1997), “Brand
development versus new product
development: towards a process model of
extension decision”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 13-26.
Atilgan, E., Safak, A. and Serkan, A. (2005),
“Determinants of the brand equity: A
verification approach in the beverage

industry in Turkey”, Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 237-248.
Babin, B.J. and James, K. (2010), “A brief
retrospective and introspective on value”,
European Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 471-478.
Barwise, P. (1993), “Brand Equity: Snark or
Boojum?”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.
93-104.
Brianna, R., Wang, Y. and Stoner, J. (2014),
"When a brand caught fire: the role of brand
equity in product-harm crisis", Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 No.
7, pp. 532-542.
Broniarczyk, S.M. and Gershoff, A.D. (2003),
“The Reciprocal Effects of Brand Equity and
Trivial Attributes”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 161-175.
Choi, S.C. and Coughlan, A. (2006), “Private
label positioning: Quality versus feature
differentiation from the national brand”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 79-
93.
Christodoulides, G. and de Chernatony, L.
(2010), “Consumer-based brand equity
conceptualization and measurement: A
literature review”, International Journal of
Market Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N.
(1995), “Brand Equity, Brand Preference,
and Purchase Intent”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1995), Built to last:
Successful Habits of Visionary Companies,
Random House, London.
Copeland, M.T. (1923), “Relation of Consumers’
Buying Habits to Marketing Methods”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp.
282-289.
Cuneo, A., Lopez, P. and Yague, M.J. (2012),
“Private label brands: measuring equity
across consumer segments”, Journal of
18
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21 No.
6, pp. 428–438.
Davcik, N.S. (2013), “An empirical investigation
of brand equity: Drivers and their
consequences”, British Food Journal, Vol.
115 No. 9, pp. 1342-1360.
Davcik, N.S. and Rundquist, J. (2012), “An
Exploratory Study of Brand Success:
Evidence From the Food Industry”, Journal
of International Food and Agribusiness
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1 – 19.
Davcik, N.S. and Sharma, P. (forthcoming),
“Impact of Product Differentiation,
Marketing Investments and Brand Equity on
Pricing Strategies: A Brand Level
Investigation”, European Journal of
Marketing.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand Equity
As a Signaling Phenomenon”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp.
131-158.
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), “Managing Brand
Equity”, Marketing Research, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 24-33.
Gabbott, M. and Jevons, C. (2009), “Brand
community in search of theory: An endless
spiral of ambiguity”, Marketing Theory, Vol.
9 No. 1, pp. 119-122.
Gardner, B. and Levy, S. (1955), “The Product
and the Brand”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 33-39.
Hegner, S., Beldad, A. and Kamphuis op
Heghuis, S. (2014), “How company
responses and trusting relationships protect
brand equity in times of crises”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 429-
445.
Hult, T., Mena, J.A., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L.
(2011), “Stakeholder marketing: a definition
and conceptual framework”, Academy of
Marketing Science Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp.
44-65.
Iglesias, O., Ind, N. and Alfaro, M. (2013), “The
organic view of the brand: A brand value co-

creation model”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 670-688.
Isberg, S. and Pitta, D. (2013), “Using financial
analysis to assess brand equity”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22 No.
1, pp. 65–78.
Jevons, C. (2007), “Towards an integrated
definition of “brand””, in de Chernatony, L.
(ed.), 2007 Thought Leaders’ International
Conference on Brand Management,
Birmingham Business School, UK
Kamakura, W. and Russell, G. (1993),
“Measuring brand value with scanner data”,
International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
King, S. (1991), “Brand-building in the 1990s”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No.
4, pp. 43-52.
Kirk, C.P., Ray, I. and Wilson, B. (2013), “The
impact of brand value on firm valuation: The
moderating influence of firm type”, Journal
of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp.
488-500.
Keller, K. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring,
and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No.
1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K. and Lehmann, D. (2003), “How Do
Brands Create Value”, Marketing
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 26-31.
Keller, K. and Lehmann, D. (2006), “Brands and
Branding: Research Findings and Future
Priorities”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No.
6, pp. 740-759.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2012), Marketing
Management; 14 ed., Prentice Hall
International, New Jersey.
MacInnis, D.J. (2011), “A Framework for
Conceptual Contributions in Marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp.
136-154.
Merz, M.A., He, Y. and Vargo, S.L. (2009),
“The evolving brand logic: a service-
dominant logic perspective”, Journal of the
19
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No.
3, pp. 328-344.
Pappu, R., Pascale, G.Q. and Cooksey, R.
(2005), “Consumer-based brand equity:
improving the measurement – empirical
evidence”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-154.
Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), “A Survey-
Based Method for Measuring and
Understanding Brand Equity and Its
Extendibility”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 271-288.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J. and Priester, J.
(2008), “Brand attachment and a strategic
brand exemplar”, in Schmitt, B.H. and David
L. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook on Brand and
Experience Management, Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar Pub.
Paswan, A., Guzman, F. and Blankson C.
(2012), “Business to business governance
structure and marketing strategy”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp.
908–918.
Raggio, R.D. and Leone, R.P. (2007), “The
theoretical separation of brand equity and
brand value: Managerial implications for
strategic planning”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 380-395.
Raggio, R.D. and Leone, R.P. (2009), “Chasing
brand value: Fully leveraging brand equity to
maximise brand value”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 248-263.
Salinas, G. and Ambler, T. (2009), “A taxonomy
of brand valuation practice: Methodologies
and purposes”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 39-61.
Schmalensee, R. (1982), “Product Differentiation
Advantages of Pioneering Brands”, The
American Economic Review, Vol. 72 No. 3,
pp. 349-365.
Shapiro, C. (1982), “Consumer Information,
Product Quality, and Seller Reputation”, Bell
Journal of Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 20-
35.

Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Ruekert,
R.W. (1994), “Challenges and Opportunities
Facing Brand Management: An Introduction
to the Special Issue”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 149-158.
Simon, C.J. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The
Measurement and Determinants of Brand
Equity: A Financial Approach”, Marketing
Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 28-52.
Sinclair, R and Keller, K. (2014), “A case for
brands as assets: Acquired and internally
developed”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 286-302.
Spielmann, N. (2014), “Brand equity for origin-
bounded brands”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 189-201.
Srinivasan, V., Park, C. and Chang, D. (2005),
“An Approach to the Measurement,
Analysis, and Prediction of Brand Equity and
Its Sources”, Management Science, Vol. 51
No. 9, pp. 1433-1448.
Sriram, S., Subramanian B. and Manohar U.K.
(2007), “Monitoring the Dynamics of Brand
Equity Using Store-Level Data”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 61-78.
20
Smith, R.J. (1915), “Market Distribution-
Discussion: J. Russell Smith”, American
Economic Review, Vol. 5 No.1, pp. 157-158.
Suder, G. and Suder, D. (2013), “The effect of
macroeconomic threats on brand value and
ranking: Insights from 10 years of
fluctuations”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 309-324.
Veloutsou, C., Christodoulides, G. and de
Chernatony, L. (2013), “A taxonomy of
measures for consumer-based brand equity:
drawing on the views of managers in
Europe”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 238–248.
Yadav, M.S. (2014), “Enhancing theory
development in marketing”, Academy of
Marketing Science Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp.
1-4.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An
Examination of Selected Marketing Mix
Elements and Brand Equity”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No.
2, pp. 195-211.
 21

FIGURES:

Figure1: Brand equity concepts position matrix

Note: 1 – Farquhar (1989); 2 – Aaker (1991); 3 – Keller (1993); 4 – Simon and Sullivan (1993);
5 – Kamakura and Russell (1993); 6 – Yoo et al. (2000); 7 – Ailawadi et al. (2003); 8 – Srinivasan, Park
and Chang (2005); 9 - Ambler (2008); 10 – Keller and Lehmann (2003, 2006); 11 – Raggio and Leone
(2009)
 22

Figure 2: Three business domains in the creation of brand equity

 23

Table 1: Taxonomy of brand equity: main concepts, research focuses and exemplars
Type of the brand equity Taxonomy
No. Exemplars Research focus Conclusion Open questions and dilemmas
model notation
Brand endows a product
strategic aspects and What is a proper strategy for leveraging brand equity?
1 Farquhar (1989) marketing management C Brand equity is the added value
leveraging brand equity What are determinants of brand value?
Development of a strong brand is imperative
A management of brand equity and brand portfolio is a How to identify specific features that constitute
consumer-based brand guardian of the brand value underlying brand assets?
2 Aaker (1991) C consumers
equity Defines underlying assets of the brand equity How brand can serve as a tool for long-term vs. short-
term business strategy?
Implications for sales, market share and profits What are valid benchmarks?
consumer-based brand
A brand has a positive customer-based brand equity if What are the effects of brand equity dimensions on
3 Keller (1993) equity: conceptual C consumers
consumers are attached to the brand business strategies?
framework
How marketers can create value for a brand?
The value of brand equity is extracted from the value of
the firm’s assets. More refined measures of market share and advertising
based on objective market-based measures and are needed, in order to estimate brand equity more
Simon & Sullivan financial market-based
4 M financial aspect of brand value incorporates the effects of brand performance outputs accurate.
(1993) approach
Not applicable on non-public companies Which factors should be included to improve brand
Aggregated macro approach not applicable on brand-level equity estimations?
data (individual brands)
BEq is a measure of the intrinsic utility or value of a brand
Kamakura & What are possible links of the consumer choice to BEq
5 consumer choice M consumer to consumers
Russell (1993) and brand value formation
Positive correlation between brand value and market share
The interaction effect of marketing mix on brand equity Has limited marketing efforts from a long-term
Sales has influence on brand equity perspective of brand management
Yoo, Donthu & Price is related to quality; consumers use it as a proxy for Comprehensive research on the interaction effect of
6 marketing management C, D marketing mix
Lee (2000) the quality brand equity dimensions on brand equity is needed.
The role of brand equity in the firm’s success need to be
investigated.
Lack of insight into “the consumer-based sources of brand
Ailawadi, What is the identification of the benchmark brand?
financial aspect (contribution) equity” (pp.15)
7 Lehmann & revenue premium M What are structural relationships in the development
of brand equity Additional brand building investment (e.g., advertising) in
Neslin (2003) process of high-equity brands?
the brand raise of the brand equity.
BEq is a measure of annual money incremental
The lack of market valuation of consumer-based measure
Srinivasan, Park contribution between branded and non-branded products.
8 sources of brand equity M, D Consumer and appropriate measure of the relative impact of each
& Chang (2005) Sources of BEq are brand awareness, attribute perception
source on the BEq
biases and nonattribute preference.
What is the silver metric for brand equity?
determination of silver metrics Financial performance measures are necessary, but not “…should brand valuation be limited to the additional
9 Ambler (2008) financial marketing metrics M
for performance assessment sufficient in valuing brand equity. value of branding compared to the profit stream from the
equivalent unbranded product?” (p. 417)
The financial marketplace creates strategic implications
for the brand value
How much the value reported in the performance of a
The BVC measurement approaches are based on the
brand transforms to shareholder value?
customer mindset, product and financial market
Keller & Lehmann How much is the value creation dependent from
10 the brand value chain (BVC) C, M, D brand value creation From managerial point of view, the BVC suggest where
(2003, 2006) established and executed marketing program?
and how value is created for the brand.
How is determinate the interdependence between factors
The relative success or failure of a brand program is based
that inhibit a brand value creation?
on recognizing the uncontrollable nature of factors that
influence a brand value creation.
Brand value is analyzed from a firm’s perspective
Brand value represents the sale or replacement price of a
Raggio & Leone brand and vary depending on the owner Focus on brand value formation, as seen from an internal
11 Brand value formation C, M Firm’s perspective
(2009) Customer equity is a partial measure of brand value, and organizational perspective
should not be considered as an independent equity
construct (p. 261)
Note: BEq - brand equity; C – BEq conceptualization approach; M – BEq metrics approach; D – Sources of BEq determinants
 24

Table 2: Development of the Relating conceptual study

General
conceptual goal
Envisioning Explicating Relating Debating

Specific
Identifying Revising Delineating Summarizing Differentiating Integrating Advocating Refuting
conceptual goal
The brand equity concept is
divided by the consumer or We synthesized contemporary
Meaning company focus as well as on approaches in brand equity
financial and marketing literature
approach
Contribution
Taxonomic framework
(methodology)
There is a conceptual disarray
in the literature on brand We integrate stakeholder,
Evaluative
equity due to the numerous, financial performance and
criteria often conflicting, measurement marketing assets perspective
approaches and definitions
Analysis is based on three
different domains: sources,
Facilitating tools determinants and applied
metrics (research approach)
Note: Table is adapted from MacInnis (2011)

View publication stats